Forum Index
»
Jobs and Careers
Official Government Shutdown 2023 Thread
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I don't see how this would actually work. The discharge petition that article talks about leveraging is this, which doesn't have any new signatures since May 23: https://clerk.house.gov/DischargePetition/2023051701?CongressNum=118 which is for this resolution: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/350/text which is for this bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/626/text?s=1&r=2&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22H.R.+626%22%7D how does that bill get to a clean CR? |
Anonymous
You could absolutely limit the excepted personnel to those genuinely required for safety of life. Shutting down air travel doesn't risk human life (you could have a few limited open airports purely for medically necessary flights like moving organs or transferring patients) Keep MPs to secure the borders of military bases, but stop the majority of military work that isn't directly related to immediate defense. |
Anonymous
Oh. Well I thought I heard something on the radio this morning but I was also rage driving through traffic. No idea. |
Anonymous
Amen. It's enough of a sacrifice to join the military but to be expected to go with delayed pay for maybe months is so insulting. Let everyone see the results of their actions. |
Anonymous
My mortgage is still due on time. We need food and the water bill paid and gas in the car because we are still expected to go to work. These don't get "delayed". And yes, we have savings for emergencies. And yes we have credit cards. However, you are still putting the onus of the shutdown on workers. Far better for the country would be not to have this type of instability to begin with. |
Anonymous
Yes I would. People should not have to work if they have no paycheck in sight. And if ATC and TSA were furloughed, that would be the last shutdown. |
Anonymous
|
it's far more important to minimize disruption to the rest of the country, and economy, than it is to take draconian measures to try to prevent shutdowns. And it's unfortunate that federal employees' pay is *delayed* - but that's far better, for the country as a whole, than shutting down entirely.
100% wrong. Government employees have the same expectation to be paid, on time, for any work they perform, just like anybody else. |
Anonymous
Yes, if you are deemed essential. Some agencies will furlough you instead under some circumstances. Serious medical issue, yes. My agency allowed it if you could show pre-paid, non-refundable travel arrangements. Time off to spend at home? Nope. That’s cancelled. |
Anonymous
Not funding the government? Also absurd. Expecting service members overseas to deal with spouses who can’t pay rent or buy groceries? Absurd. Shutdown shouldn’t be an option. The default should be a clean CR. If Congress wants different funding levels, they should do their d*mn jobs. |
Anonymous
+1 my supervisor is usually excepted a few hours a week for stuff like certifying payroll (for work up to the shutdown). |
Anonymous
Here’s what minimizing disruption gets you: more shutdowns because the average American isn’t affected. Maybe if the average American was inconvenienced, they vote for Reps who will do their job. It s easy to vote for chaos when the chaos doesn’t affect you. You want the Average American not to be inconvenienced. But the House directly represents average Americans. If average Americans vote for Reps who want shutdowns, then average Americans deserve to see the actual consequences of their votes. |
Anonymous
PREACH. I’m assuming their will be protests by furloughed Feds. I’ve done 2 prolonged shutdowns. This is the straw that breaks the camels back for me. I’m there with a sign. |
Anonymous
This. People are actively choosing dysfunction by voting for the MTGs of the world. Or not voting. They need to understand the consequences of dysfunctional government. |
Anonymous
Democrats and enough moderate Rs sign it no start the process. |
Anonymous
This is the "Breaking the Gridlock Act" which stipulate the rules that decisions affecting certain organizations within the federal government (including appropriations) must go through the committee for those organizations. So, this allows individual congressmen or small groups of congressmen to create gridlock within committees by blocking a vote on particular issues (like Senator Tuberville is doing for the Senate Arms Committee blocking military appointmnets). If they can vote for the above act, then the Speaker of the House would be able to move an issue that is stalled in committee to the general floor bypassing the gridlock or blockage. In this case, the appropriations bills are being tied up in committee by Freedom Caucus members. This would allow McCarthy to push the appropriations bills from their individual committees to full House to be voted on and would stop the 20 members of the Freedom Caucus from blockading the appropriations and shutting down the government. |